Historic child abuse files missing

More than 100 official files relating to historic allegations of organised child abuse have gone missing, the Home Office has disclosed.

Mark Sedwill, the permanent secretary at the Home Office, said the documents - which related to a 20-year period between 1979 and 1999 - were "presumed destroyed, missing or not found".

The disclosure came as Mr Sedwill said that he was appointing a senior legal figure to carry out a fresh review of how the Home Office dealt with a dossier alleging paedophile activity at Westminster in the 1980s.

He was responding to a call from David Cameron who urged him to "do everything he can" to establish what happened to the file which was handed to the then Home Secretary Leon (now Lord) Brittan by Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens in 1983.

Only last year, a review - carried out for the Home Office by a HM Customs and Revenue investigator - concluded the relevant information in the file had been passed to the police and the rest of the material destroyed in line with departmental policy at the time.

In a letter to the Prime Minister, Mr Sedwill wrote: "To provide the additional reassurance you are seeking, particularly in view of information now in the public domain since the investigation's conclusion last year, I will engage a senior independent legal figure to assess whether the review's conclusions remain sound. I aim to make the appointment within the next week."

In a separate letter to the chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Committee, Keith Vaz, Mr Sedwill disclosed that while the original review had identified 527 potentially relevant files which had been retained, there were a further 114 files which could not be located.

He said that the investigation had not found a single dossier from Mr Dickens, but several sets of correspondence over a number of years to a number of home secretaries containing allegations of sexual offences.

However he said that the review had found no record of specific allegations by Mr Dickens of child sex abuse by prominent public figures.

"Like any other citizen, I am horrified by what we have learnt in the past couple of years about the systematic abuse of children and vulnerable adults by prominent public figures, and the state's failure to protect them," he wrote.

"Some have been brought to justice and I hope that the police investigations now under way across the country are equally successful. The Home Office has and will co-operate fully with any police inquiry."

The disclosures have intensified calls from MPs for Mr Cameron to hold an over-arching inquiry into all the allegations of historic child sex abuse from that period.

The pressure has been growing since Labour MP Simon Danczuck - who has carried out his own investigation into child abuse by the former Liberal MP Sir Cyril Smith - raised the issue of the Dickens dossier at a Home Affairs Committee hearing.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper welcomed the latest review but said that it still did not go far enough.

"The Home Secretary doesn't seem to have grasped the gravity of this and so officials and Downing Street have not yet taken the action we need," she said.

"Given the many different inquiries, Theresa May must establish an overarching review led by child protection experts. This would draw together the results from all the different cases, investigations and institutional inquiries to allow us to learn from the failure of previous decades and keep children safe in the future."

Comments

This really does look like the old school tie brigade at work.surely mr brittan can recall the names that were in the folder or can he not remember something that would surely have caused eyebrows to be raised if the people named were known to him.

This really does look like the old school tie brigade at work.surely mr brittan can recall the names that were in the folder or can he not remember something that would surely have caused eyebrows to be raised if the people named were known to him.nigel d

This really does look like the old school tie brigade at work.surely mr brittan can recall the names that were in the folder or can he not remember something that would surely have caused eyebrows to be raised if the people named were known to him.

Score: 1

RM
1:17am Sun 6 Jul 14

They're all protecting each other aren't they? The scum need to be identified & sorted out once & for all. Otherwise, with certain names being bandied about on the internet but no action being taken there's a strong possibility of vigilante action which could lead to innocent people being targeted.

They're all protecting each other aren't they? The scum need to be identified & sorted out once & for all. Otherwise, with certain names being bandied about on the internet but no action being taken there's a strong possibility of vigilante action which could lead to innocent people being targeted.RM

They're all protecting each other aren't they? The scum need to be identified & sorted out once & for all. Otherwise, with certain names being bandied about on the internet but no action being taken there's a strong possibility of vigilante action which could lead to innocent people being targeted.

Score: 0

RM
1:17am Sun 6 Jul 14

They're all protecting each other aren't they? The scum need to be identified & sorted out once & for all. Otherwise, with certain names being bandied about on the internet but no action being taken there's a strong possibility of vigilante action which could lead to innocent people being targeted.

They're all protecting each other aren't they? The scum need to be identified & sorted out once & for all. Otherwise, with certain names being bandied about on the internet but no action being taken there's a strong possibility of vigilante action which could lead to innocent people being targeted.RM

They're all protecting each other aren't they? The scum need to be identified & sorted out once & for all. Otherwise, with certain names being bandied about on the internet but no action being taken there's a strong possibility of vigilante action which could lead to innocent people being targeted.

Score: 0

RM
1:17am Sun 6 Jul 14

They're all protecting each other aren't they? The scum need to be identified & sorted out once & for all. Otherwise, with certain names being bandied about on the internet but no action being taken there's a strong possibility of vigilante action which could lead to innocent people being targeted.

They're all protecting each other aren't they? The scum need to be identified & sorted out once & for all. Otherwise, with certain names being bandied about on the internet but no action being taken there's a strong possibility of vigilante action which could lead to innocent people being targeted.RM

They're all protecting each other aren't they? The scum need to be identified & sorted out once & for all. Otherwise, with certain names being bandied about on the internet but no action being taken there's a strong possibility of vigilante action which could lead to innocent people being targeted.

Score: 0

Katie Re-Registered
10:38am Sun 6 Jul 14

"I do think it is very significant that not only did the men now being 'named and shamed' pass the law making homosexual acts legal but that the age has been lowered from 21 to 16."

Technically, that could actually amount to a libellous statement as none of "the men now being named and shamed" passed the law to legalise homosexuality. The MP who was responsible in 1967 for (imho) the very progressive and positive change to British law has now passed away, was a decent and well respected bloke - and was not a paedophile. *Editor, please exercise caution here.

"I do think it is very significant that not only did the men now being 'named and shamed' pass the law making homosexual acts legal but that the age has been lowered from 21 to 16."
Technically, that could actually amount to a libellous statement as none of "the men now being named and shamed" passed the law to legalise homosexuality. The MP who was responsible in 1967 for (imho) the very progressive and positive change to British law has now passed away, was a decent and well respected bloke - and was not a paedophile. *Editor, please exercise caution here.Katie Re-Registered

"I do think it is very significant that not only did the men now being 'named and shamed' pass the law making homosexual acts legal but that the age has been lowered from 21 to 16."

Technically, that could actually amount to a libellous statement as none of "the men now being named and shamed" passed the law to legalise homosexuality. The MP who was responsible in 1967 for (imho) the very progressive and positive change to British law has now passed away, was a decent and well respected bloke - and was not a paedophile. *Editor, please exercise caution here.

Score: 0

OldBiddyFrom Barney
10:47am Sun 6 Jul 14

Katie Re-Registered wrote…

Sorry, but that last comment was just blatant homophobia.

Fact: most of the celebrities we've seen convicted for paedophilia so far are actually heterosexual and gender normative: Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Max Clifford, for example. Bearing that in mind, why doesn't anyone make a similar suggestion to ban heterosexuality, or at least put the age of heterosexual consent up to 21?

Kate I can see where your coming from, its not about people having sex with people they want to have sex with. In Barney there have always been openly homosexual people even before it was legal I have no problem WHATSOEVER with people doing what they want with their own bodies .

It is a myth that the police arrested people for being gay the law 'allowing 'homosexuality' was largely passed to protect wealthy ***** who abused young lads from being blackmailed by their victims.

'Rent boys' in their teens don't have a choice if they did would it really be fat old men?

You can't shut down the debate about abuse by telling people they are anti homosexuals when abuse it isn't just about sex it's about power and control avaliability of victims and opportunity.

[quote][p][bold]Katie Re-Registered[/bold] wrote:
Sorry, but that last comment was just blatant homophobia.
Fact: most of the celebrities we've seen convicted for paedophilia so far are actually heterosexual and gender normative: Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Max Clifford, for example. Bearing that in mind, why doesn't anyone make a similar suggestion to ban heterosexuality, or at least put the age of heterosexual consent up to 21?[/p][/quote]Kate I can see where your coming from, its not about people having sex with people they want to have sex with. In Barney there have always been openly homosexual people even before it was legal I have no problem WHATSOEVER with people doing what they want with their own bodies .
It is a myth that the police arrested people for being gay the law 'allowing 'homosexuality' was largely passed to protect wealthy ***** who abused young lads from being blackmailed by their victims.
'Rent boys' in their teens don't have a choice if they did would it really be fat old men?
You can't shut down the debate about abuse by telling people they are anti homosexuals when abuse it isn't just about sex it's about power and control avaliability of victims and opportunity.OldBiddyFrom Barney

Katie Re-Registered wrote…

Sorry, but that last comment was just blatant homophobia.

Fact: most of the celebrities we've seen convicted for paedophilia so far are actually heterosexual and gender normative: Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Max Clifford, for example. Bearing that in mind, why doesn't anyone make a similar suggestion to ban heterosexuality, or at least put the age of heterosexual consent up to 21?

Kate I can see where your coming from, its not about people having sex with people they want to have sex with. In Barney there have always been openly homosexual people even before it was legal I have no problem WHATSOEVER with people doing what they want with their own bodies .

It is a myth that the police arrested people for being gay the law 'allowing 'homosexuality' was largely passed to protect wealthy ***** who abused young lads from being blackmailed by their victims.

'Rent boys' in their teens don't have a choice if they did would it really be fat old men?

You can't shut down the debate about abuse by telling people they are anti homosexuals when abuse it isn't just about sex it's about power and control avaliability of victims and opportunity.

Score: 2

OldBiddyFrom Barney
10:13am Sun 6 Jul 14

I am sure that there was a least as much sexual and physical abuse in the most expensive boarding schools as in the toughest childrens homes and borstals. The little boys that entered those vile places learned very quickly to keep their heads down and say nothing. The seven year old 'victims' very often became the 15 year old 'criminals' So by the time they leave the system what can they say 'you did this to me but then again I did this to them' We are governed by people who have been groomed and abused as children that is the problem

It becomes in all their interests to keep quiet institutional abuse doesn't run in a straight line it goes round and round. I do think it is very significant that not only did the men now being 'named and shamed' pass the law making homosexual acts legal but that the age has been lowered from 21 to 16.

Not because I want to stop gay people being gay but because it took away the protection from vunerable youngest leaving care.

I am sure that there was a least as much sexual and physical abuse in the most expensive boarding schools as in the toughest childrens homes and borstals. The little boys that entered those vile places learned very quickly to keep their heads down and say nothing. The seven year old 'victims' very often became the 15 year old 'criminals' So by the time they leave the system what can they say 'you did this to me but then again I did this to them' We are governed by people who have been groomed and abused as children that is the problem
It becomes in all their interests to keep quiet institutional abuse doesn't run in a straight line it goes round and round. I do think it is very significant that not only did the men now being 'named and shamed' pass the law making homosexual acts legal but that the age has been lowered from 21 to 16.
Not because I want to stop gay people being gay but because it took away the protection from vunerable youngest leaving care.OldBiddyFrom Barney

I am sure that there was a least as much sexual and physical abuse in the most expensive boarding schools as in the toughest childrens homes and borstals. The little boys that entered those vile places learned very quickly to keep their heads down and say nothing. The seven year old 'victims' very often became the 15 year old 'criminals' So by the time they leave the system what can they say 'you did this to me but then again I did this to them' We are governed by people who have been groomed and abused as children that is the problem

It becomes in all their interests to keep quiet institutional abuse doesn't run in a straight line it goes round and round. I do think it is very significant that not only did the men now being 'named and shamed' pass the law making homosexual acts legal but that the age has been lowered from 21 to 16.

Not because I want to stop gay people being gay but because it took away the protection from vunerable youngest leaving care.

Score: 1

Katie Re-Registered
10:30am Sun 6 Jul 14

Sorry, but that last comment was just blatant homophobia.

Fact: most of the celebrities we've seen convicted for paedophilia so far are actually heterosexual and gender normative: Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Max Clifford, for example. Bearing that in mind, why doesn't anyone make a similar suggestion to ban heterosexuality, or at least put the age of heterosexual consent up to 21?

Sorry, but that last comment was just blatant homophobia.
Fact: most of the celebrities we've seen convicted for paedophilia so far are actually heterosexual and gender normative: Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Max Clifford, for example. Bearing that in mind, why doesn't anyone make a similar suggestion to ban heterosexuality, or at least put the age of heterosexual consent up to 21?Katie Re-Registered

Sorry, but that last comment was just blatant homophobia.

Fact: most of the celebrities we've seen convicted for paedophilia so far are actually heterosexual and gender normative: Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter, Stuart Hall, Max Clifford, for example. Bearing that in mind, why doesn't anyone make a similar suggestion to ban heterosexuality, or at least put the age of heterosexual consent up to 21?

Score: -1

OldBiddyFrom Barney
11:04am Sun 6 Jul 14

Katie Re-Registered wrote…

"I do think it is very significant that not only did the men now being 'named and shamed' pass the law making homosexual acts legal but that the age has been lowered from 21 to 16."

Technically, that could actually amount to a libellous statement as none of "the men now being named and shamed" passed the law to legalise homosexuality. The MP who was responsible in 1967 for (imho) the very progressive and positive change to British law has now passed away, was a decent and well respected bloke - and was not a paedophile. *Editor, please exercise caution here.

OK Kate here we go lets cover it all up again lets put a silver lid on the cesspool,you can start making 'threats' to people you disagree with and shut the discussion down

You can pick holes in what I say well done I was not referring to the person who YOU are referring to nor did I accuse him of anything I was referring to the Parliment who passed the law!

[quote][p][bold]Katie Re-Registered[/bold] wrote:
"I do think it is very significant that not only did the men now being 'named and shamed' pass the law making homosexual acts legal but that the age has been lowered from 21 to 16."
Technically, that could actually amount to a libellous statement as none of "the men now being named and shamed" passed the law to legalise homosexuality. The MP who was responsible in 1967 for (imho) the very progressive and positive change to British law has now passed away, was a decent and well respected bloke - and was not a paedophile. *Editor, please exercise caution here.[/p][/quote]OK Kate here we go lets cover it all up again lets put a silver lid on the cesspool,you can start making 'threats' to people you disagree with and shut the discussion down
You can pick holes in what I say well done I was not referring to the person who YOU are referring to nor did I accuse him of anything I was referring to the Parliment who passed the law!OldBiddyFrom Barney

Katie Re-Registered wrote…

"I do think it is very significant that not only did the men now being 'named and shamed' pass the law making homosexual acts legal but that the age has been lowered from 21 to 16."

Technically, that could actually amount to a libellous statement as none of "the men now being named and shamed" passed the law to legalise homosexuality. The MP who was responsible in 1967 for (imho) the very progressive and positive change to British law has now passed away, was a decent and well respected bloke - and was not a paedophile. *Editor, please exercise caution here.

OK Kate here we go lets cover it all up again lets put a silver lid on the cesspool,you can start making 'threats' to people you disagree with and shut the discussion down

You can pick holes in what I say well done I was not referring to the person who YOU are referring to nor did I accuse him of anything I was referring to the Parliment who passed the law!

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here